Rethinking the cesarean rate: How pregnancy complications may affect interhospital comparisons

Medical Care

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 237-245

  Korst, Lisa M ^a,b,c,e,f   Gornbein, Jeffrey A ^d   Gregory, Kimberly D ^g  

^a BURNS AND ALLEN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f CHILDREN S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES   (United States)

^g NONE

Author keywords

Cesarean; Quality improvement; Recursive partitioning; Risk adjustment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ASTHMA; CESAREAN SECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; LABOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PREGNANCY RATE; RISK ASSESSMENT; CLASSIFICATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PREGNANCY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; CALIFORNIA; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT STUDIES; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; PATIENT DISCHARGE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS; RISK ADJUSTMENT; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

EID: 14844337116     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00006     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Martin JA, et al. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003;52:1-114.
2. Keeler EB, Park RE, Be//ll RM, Gifford DS, Keesey J. Adjusting cesarean delivery rates for case mix. Health Services Res. 32:511-528.
3. Aron DC, Harper DL, Shepardson LB, Rosenthal GE. Impact of risk adjusting cesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. JAMA. 1998;279:1968-1972.
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Evaluation of Cesarean Delivery. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000.
5. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Platt LD. Variation in elective primary cesarean delivery by patient and hospital factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184:1521-1534.
6. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Gornbein JA, Platt LD. Using administrative data to identify indications for elective primary cesarean delivery. Health Services Res. 2002;37:1387-1401.
7. Henry OA, Gregory KD, Hobel CJ, et al. Using the ICD-9 coding system to identify indications for both primary and repeat cesarean sections. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:1143-1146.
8. American Hospital Association (AHA). AHA Guide to the Health Care Field, 2001-2002 Edition. Chicago, IL: Health Forum, an AHA company; 2001.
9. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). California Graduate Medical Education Programs, 1996-1997 Update. Sacramento, CA: OSHPD; 1998.
10. Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, Averill RF, Thompson JD. Case mix definition by diagnosis-related groups. Med Care. 1980;18(2 suppl): iii, 1-53.
11. Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P, et al. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980's: International comparison by Indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:495-504.
12. Iezzoni LI. Developing risk-adjustment methods, Chapter 6 in Iezzoni LI, Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1994:200.
13. Bailit JL, Garrett JM, Miller WC, et al. Hospital primary cesarean delivery rates and the risk of poor neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:721-727.
14. Gould JB, Danielsen B, Korst LM, et al. Cesarean rates and neonatal morbidity in a low risk population. Obstet Gynecol, 2004;104:11-19.
15. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Second Edition - Caring for Patients. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2004.
16. Schrag SJ, Zell ER, Lynfield R, et al. Active Bacterial Core Surveillance Team. A population-based comparison of strategies to prevent early-onset group B streptococcal disease in neonates. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347:233-239.
17. Bailit J, Garrett J. Comparison of risk-adjustment methodologies for cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:45-51.
18. Stafford RJ. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. JAMA. 1991;265:59-63.
19. Oleske DM, Glandon GL, Giacomelli GJ, Hohmann SF. The cesarean birth rate: influence of hospital teaching status. Health Services Res. 1991;26:325-337.
20. McKenzie L, Stephenson PA. Variation in cesarean section rates among hospitals in Washington State. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:1109-1112.
21. Garcia FA, Miller HB, Huggins GR, Gordon TA. Effect of academic affiliation and obstetric volume on clinical outcome and cost of childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:567-576.
22. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Quality Indicators - Guide to Inpatient Quality Indicators. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003. AHRQ Publication 03-R203.
23. Johantgen M, Elixhauser A, Bali JK, et al. Quality indicators using hospital discharge data: State and national applications. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24:88-105.
24. Public Health Service (PHS). Healthy People 2010, 2d ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.
25. Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:suppl:666-674.
26. Romano PS, Roos LL, Luft HS, et al, and The Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. A comparison of administrative versus clinical data: Coronary artery bypass surgery as an example. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:249-260.
27. Romano PS. Can administrative data be used to compare the quality of health care? Med Care Rev. 1993;50:451-477.
28. Gregory K, Curtin SC, Taffel SM, et al. Changes in indications for cesarean delivery: United States, 1985 and 1994. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1384-1387.
29. DiGiuseppe DD, Aron DC, Payne SMC, et al. Risk adjusting cesarean delivery rates: a comparison of hospital profiles based on medical record and birth certificate data. Health Serv Res. 2001;36:959-977.
30. Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Shwartz M, et al. Predicting who dies depends on how severity is measured: Implications for evaluating patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:763-770.
31. Korst LM, Gregory KD, Gornbein JA. Elective primary cesarean delivery: accuracy of administrative data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004; 18:112-119.